Posted on 12/29/2005 5:53:27 AM PST by harpu
They were all acquitted by the jury.
Most of your posts are based on wishful thinking. Well maybe they'll vote Republican or maybe we can end welfare as we know it if we play our cards right or most of them will return home if we loosen the border and let them come and go as they please.
When running a nation leaders can't go by maybes or what ifs but only facts using history sometimes as a guide. We tried amnesty in 1986 and it resulted in a massive increase in illegals pouring across while traditionally conservative states like California went socialist.
Repeating the same mistakes over only now with as many as six or more times the amount of illegals present as then would be devastating to future generations and would if California is any indication condemn them to being ruled by a socialist government nationally.
Are you aware thanks to family chain laws if we allowed all these illegals to buy their citizenship as you propose nearly half of Mexico, up to 40 million would be eligible to immigrate to the US? Do you honestly believe that's in the best interest of this nation let alone the Republican party?
not only that, they were not wal mart employees at all. They were CONTRACTORS. The stupid and silly idea that I am responsible for CONTRACT labor, whom I do not supervise, direct, or exercise control over (that is the definition of CONTRACTOR for some of the brainiacs who reside on these threads) is utter nonsense.
This was a way for ICE to show some muscle. Wal Mart should have told them to go to hell and fought it, but when you fight the fed in court, they have unlimited resources, so Wal Mart just paid a fine and said "yassah, massah" so that the labor whores could talk about how they backed the scab labor down. It was mindless posturing from the very get go.
So if I hire a contractor to perform a service on my property, I am not responsible for the laws they break? LOL!!!
It's the law. If the jury thinks you helped an illegal gain employment, and if they think you should have known better, you pay the penalty.
But the point is, it is not political suicide to go after employers of illegals as the poster suggested. And this case should have a chilling effect on others who do the same as Wal-Mart.
No. They agreed to pay an 11 million dollar fine. And now they are fighting a lawsuit filed by the people they hired:
"Plaintiffs lawyers in a federal class-action suit in Newark, N.J., challenging the labor practices of the world's biggest corporation, Wal-Mart, think they've got a fighting chance, now that they hold the fruits of a federal criminal probe.
"Affidavit testimony from an immigration investigation of Wal-Mart, they say, shows that two senior executives knew the company's cleaning contractors employed illegal aliens across the country -- the very scienter the plaintiffs need to prove their case.
"This document demonstrates very clearly that Wal-Mart executives knew of the operations of these subcontractors and were very, very much in agreement with the situation," says Gilberto Garcia, of Garcia & Kricko in Englewood Cliffs, N.J., one of the plaintiffs' lawyers in Zavala v. Wal-Mart, 03-5309.
"The suit charges that the contractors routinely hired illegal immigrants from Mexico and Eastern Europe to work seven days a week, housed them in squalid quarters, paid them less than minimum wage and even locked them in Wal-Mart stores at night."
You're right, I was wrong. I was thinking of Tyson, whose executives were prosecuted and acquitted.
What problem is that going to solve? After their time is up, they will stay here and work as illegals.
So we will still have the problem of them mooching off our social services, the problem of either anchor babies or baby illegals.
And then we will have the problem of a sub-class of worker who will have an advantage over American workers -- they will be able to live off of low pay because they will be able to move back to Mexico where the living is cheap.
A second-class citizenry is a very bad idea. Do I need to explain why?
We always enjoy the presence of children here, but you need to sit at the feet of someone a lot older than you are, and learn, learn, learn before embarrassing yourself again.
What? Wal-Mart couldn't scrape together the cash to fight this? C'mon.
Too bad.
"If I got everything I liked out of a program like this (I won't) I would put everyone who is here illegally on a guest worker program, contingent on paying back taxes, a hefty fine (even heftier if they want to get on a track for citizenship), proof that no illegal activity has gone down other than the stuff to get across the border and live here, and a clean bill of health. Part of the requirements for ANY alien who seeks citizenship should be the demand that no federal or state assistance is sought.
Many freepers do not realize that if we played this right, we could use the argument that hispanics and asians come here and PROSPER with no fed assistance, thereby giving legitimacy to arguments for dismanteling the whole welfare state."
This is where I would differ:
1.) I would put all those here illegally in a guestworker program(If they wanted to stay and work here.) I would not include any fines, but would exclude any who have been convicted of a crime here.
2.) I would not include a path to citizenship. This is why I would also not assess any fines. Like you, I would also argue for an end to welfare benefits to non-citizens, and I would end the exploitation of birthright citizenship.
3.) Thirdly, you are right that if this was framed right, it would be a huge victory, as it should. However, why I would not include a path to citizenship is because we could show that we are determined to get to the root of the problem, and allow those workers who have gained skills and money in the US to return to their home countries and improve the conditions there.
As far as being "thread police" I fear that my qualifications are suspect. I sometimes forget to laugh at the people who post here and get upset with them instead. It is a character flaw that gets me suspended sometimes, so my track record doesn't rise to the quals necessary for internet police. I deal with many heavy breathers here who are so damn stupid that they can't tell the difference between complete amnesty and no borders vs. liberal immigration and dual paths to legal status. As a result, I get a good deal of the kind of cranially eviscerated vapid accusations lke this gem "Frankly, I find your support of illegal activity disgusting."..... whoops, er, that was YOUR post. Oh well. Anyway, if you were one of the OTHER imbeciles who accuse me of various and sundry activities, I would respond that I do not "support illegal activity" but rather think there is more than one way to deal with the illegal activity that has gone on. If that one went by too quickly for you, let me know and I will try to type slower for you next time.
This morning you were over charged with coffee. Now I suspect you are over charged with Tequila
That is right, Homer.
LOL!!
Thorns crackling as they burn.
There are times when it is cheaper to settle. If you didn't know this, you have never been involved in litigation
Well, I don't drink Tequila, but yeah anyhow. Sometimes I try to be witty and only make it halfway there.
Ohhhh, I didn't realize it was you. So I guess you are back from your whinefest with the mods? Poor baby. Did the mod kiss it and make it all better? Woundn't want to hurt its widdle feelings,now, would we?
You are a real piece of work.
I need no back up on this. We could never afford Mexico's poverty and over-population. Mexico is in more trouble than you can ever imagine. That is why Georges lip prints are on Vincentes ass. George does not think we can stand them off at the border.
Let's hope that Wal-Mart also finds it cheaper to obey the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.